Editor’s
note:For ease in finding particular
sections using the archived video and audio on the Town website, the elapsed
time is indicated.Use the slider and
the elapsed time indicated at the bottom of the video window to fast forward to
the desired section.Videos on the Town website may currently be accessed
at www.town.rye.nh.us by clicking on
“Town Hall Streaming” at the bottom left of the screen.Follow the link for “Town Hall Live
Streaming,” then find the meeting by date under “Previous.”

Jane Holway passed out
a document to the Selectmen.She said
that she was present to talk about Ms. Parsons’ wishes regarding the purchase
and use of the TD Bank building.She
said that she had spoken at the Deliberative Session based on recall from 55
years earlier.She said that she had
been in her attic looking for something else and found this material which is
evidence of Ms. Parson’s desires regarding the property.

In 1964 the property
was deeded over to the bank.In 1968,
Mr. Young, who was then Chairman of the Rye Board of Selectmen, sent her a
request to sign a release deed to allow for the use of land for municipal
purposes.At that time the town was
considering putting in a complex with a Town Hall, Library, Police and
Fire.Editor’s note:It is unclear
whether Ms. Holway is talking about the TD Bank parcel or the parcel on which
Parsons Park is located.Ms. Holway
said that that had never materialized.She said that Ms. Parsons’ response was that she could not sign it, and
the reasons were provided.She also
replied to the Chairman of the HDC on the same subject.She read from the documents and said that a
legal opinion needs to be obtained.

Public Comment:Conservation acquisition, South Rd. (4:19
elapsed)

Peter Crawford
expressed concern about the conservation acquisition that would be considered
later in the meeting.He said that he
had attended the Conservation Commission hearing the prior Thursday.Prior to that he had asked
Mr. Magnant whether the traditional “a through p” documentation would be
provided in accordance with the Selectmen’s policy of early 2014.He passed out copies of that document.

Mr. Crawford said that
the document had been promulgated prior to the vote on the $3 million
conservation bond which passed by six or seven votes.In the public’s mind, these were conditions
to the passage of that bond.Without
this, it probably would not have passed.He read from the document which says that “the Town Administrator and
the Board of Selectmen may waive the specific information requirements outlined
in items 2 a through p if deemed by them to be inapplicable to a specific
acquisition.”There was apparently no
determination that anything was inapplicable, there was a determination that
this wouldn’t be done, which I think goes against the Selectmen’s own
policy.It is very disappointing that a
policy was in place, but the entire policy was waived, he said.

A lot of the
information was found in the Planning Board files, but I had to go searching
through them.It would have been nice to
have had the information assembled and I don’t know why that couldn’t have been
done, he said.

More importantly, Mr.
Crawford said as he passed out a copy, in 2015, I introduced a warrant article
that was amended fairly severely at the Deliberative Session, but it passed
with a strong majority, 829-548, Article 27.He read the warrant article:

“Under the ‘a to q’ process for conservation land
purchases, promulgated by the Board of Selectmen on January 6, 2014, only the
written information and testimony at the public hearing may be considered in
approving any acquisition.The selectmen
may consider requiring as part of the Information Submittal an appraisal at the
behest of the Town appropriately addressing the development potential of the
property and a property survey plan and boundary description.A hazardous waste environmental analysis
shall be performed for town on property previously used for commercial use.”

Mr. Crawford substituted “documentation” for “information” and left out
two definitions in parentheses as he read.He said that he understood that, at least with respect to Selectman
Jenness’ portion, there was a wood lot that had been logged.

Selectman Jenness
started to say “no,” but Selectman Musselman interrupted her.Mr. Crawford said that he may be incorrect,
but there needs to be a certification from all four property owners as to what
commercial use may have occurred before it may be decided that there was no
commercial use on any of this land, which is a condition to approving the
acquisition.It does not appear that
that was done.This may be just a
formality, but the certification needs to be done, he said.Editor’s
note:The land would to be part of a 13
lot subdivision, in accordance with a court settlement. The land was to be
subdivided was to come from four owners of adjacent properties, one of which is
a trust of which Selectman Jenness is a beneficiary.The four land owners, including the “PV &
Hyde F. Jenness Rev. Trust” are co-plaintiffs in the lawsuit against the
Planning Board of the Town of Rye, which sought to overturn the Planning
Board’s denial of the application. See http://ryecivicleague.org/?p=3886.

Mr. Crawford said that he had had some trees
cleaned up on his property and, when the vehicles go back, they’re loaded with
diesel fuel, hydraulic oil and gasoline for the chain saws.There’s a possibility that some of that may
have been spilled back there in connection with logging, or there may have been
other activities.For example, there was
a strawberry farm further down on South Rd.Sally King speculated at the Conservation Hearing that there had not
been any commercial activity.I don’t
think that that is good enough when we’re talking about potentially huge
liabilities for the Town under the environmental laws.Once you’ve bought it, you pay for any
cleanup, he said.We need to resolve
this issue before we go ahead.

In addition, the
absence of an appraisal is very frustrating as well, Mr. Crawford said.The former Rand parcel had an appraisal on
it, and the other acquisition off of South Rd., the D.D. Cook subdivision,
where there was a lot purchased for $350,000, which was also a lawsuit
settlement, had the full “a through p” done and an appraisal was included which
supported the $350,000.Here, all we
have is speculation.I’m left scratching
my head as to whether or not it’s worth $400,000 or $300,000.The Rand acquisition was $1.25 million for 16
lots that they believed would have been buildable.That works out to about $80,000 per lot.This is $100,000 per lot.It’s $400,000 to get them to reduce from 17
lots to 13 lots, a reduction of four.Whitehorse Farms, which occurred a couple of
years before the 2004 road approval, was a reduction from 28 to 15 lots, a 13
lot reduction.The Conservation
Commission, acting on behalf of the Town, got 80-100 acres and only had to pay
$210,000, or $16,000 per lot.There has
been some inflation since then, but not six times.How can we tell without an appraisal whether
it is worth $400,000 or not?How to go
into a negotiation to settle the case without an appraisal that tells us what
our position should be?The developer in
all likelihood had a sense as to what he was giving up.When I compare the drawings, two of the lots
that he gave up had tons of ledge on them, which I
think is no accident, he said.

(12:12 elapsed)

Selectman Musselman
said that Mr. Crawford was well over five minutes and asked him to sum up.

Mr. Crawford said that
he believed that those lots had been chosen so that he could avoid hammering
out all of that ledge.Editor’s note:Under the terms of the settlement, blasting
was prohibited.Mr. Crawford said
that he did not know how many hundred people signed the petition urging the
Town not to proceed with the development.Yes, it went from 17 to 13 lots, but for those who are really worried
about the water quality, if that is even an issue, it is scant solace that
there are only 13 lots rather than 17.To do everything in secret is forbidden by this article, which says that
“only the testimony at the public hearing” and “only the information submittal”
may be considered.If the Selectmen are
going to rely on what they know from private conversations with counsel and
these private negotiating sessions, that is not in conformance with this 2015
Article 27, Mr. Crawford said.

Editor’s note:The matter was
tabled to March 12 later in the meeting.Click here.

Public comment:Dow Ln. (13:09 elapsed)

Elizabeth Sanborn said that she had learned
a lot at the Deliberative Session with regard to what could happen.We went in with one warrant article and came
out with something totally different.Tonight we are going to learn a little about this remediation effort
from Chief Walsh, which is important to us.The neighborhood is a bit frustrated, but the steps going forward are
important.We are not going to give up
the fight for as long as it takes.We’re
going to make sure that we’re represented at every step along the way, she
said.

Public comment:Dogs on private property (14:11 elapsed)

David Tilton asked when
the town was going to do something about dogs running loose disturbing wildlife
on private property.I’ve been asked by
the Chief to please be patient.I’m out
of patience.Despite complaining for the
past two years, nothing effective has been accomplished.You had three people on the Rye Conservation
Committee (sic) that oppose a leash law.Are there other people?How much
influence do they have so that the Selectmen can’t give the Chief the authority
to do something to control the problem.I have 56 acres of land, the majority
abutting Town property.I’ve allowed
people to walk the perimeter for years, provided they stay out of the interior.It became necessary for me to say that you
can walk the property, but without dogs.The townspeople became so used to using my land that the majority
thought that they were on Town land.They
put up a no hunting sign on my side of the wall.Someone else brought it to their
attention.Another day I was clearing
brush along the edge of my property.A
couple came through and noted how they enjoyed walking there every day.They wanted to know if I worked for the Town
of Rye.I want the wildlife not to be
disturbed, he said.

Mr. Tilton proposed a
150 foot leash law around private property.He said that he had a pleasant meeting with Susan Shepcaro.Editor’s
note:Ms. Shepcaro is a member of the
Conservation Commission.Mr. Tilton
said that she said that they were going to put up a fence.He said that the fence was unnecessary.I can handle the people, he said.He spoke about a dog having gone over the
wall chasing a fox.

Selectman Musselman
said that it had been more than five minutes and asked Mr. Tilton to sum up.

Mr. Tilton said that
there were things that he could do that are legal, but that people would not
enjoy.If something isn’t done by you
people, I can assure you that people walking through the Town Forest near my property
will not have a pleasant walk.

Another thing to consider is that I’m getting up in years.I’m not going to be here forever.With regard to the 56 acres of land that I
own, the Town of Rye would be at the bottom of his list, he said.

Items A through C were approved without comment, with Item C, a letter
regarding what to do with the TD Bank building, to be placed on file.Item D, a letter from Representative Mindi
Messmer supporting two house bills, was pulled from the Consent Agenda.

Selectman Jenness said
that Representative Messmer was requesting support for House Bill 1766 which is
an act to remediate the Coakley Landfill in Greenland.A second bill that she is seeking support for
is House Bill 1701, which would make the Coakley Landfill Group subject to RSA
91-A.Selectman Jenness referred to
assertions that had been made regarding $5.25 million that had been received by
the Group, but uncertainty as to what the money had been spent on.She made a motion that letters of support be
sent for those two bills.

Selectman Winslow asked
whether it was known what the remediation was supposed to have been.

Before there was an
answer, Selectman Musselman interrupted and said that that was one of his
questions as well.He said that the
Coakley Landfill had been closed in accordance with arrangements with the
EPA.He said that he did not know what
was supposed to have been done.The
second bill pertains to the Coakley Landfill Group which is 53 percent the City
of Portsmouth and also includes the Towns of North Hampton, Newington, New
Castle, I think, and some waste haulers.The point that they don’t know what the money was spent on, I don’t
understand.

Selectman Jenness asked
whether there was any accounting anywhere.

Selectman Musselman
said that they have said that they are pulling together decades of boxes.I don’t know that that is the Town of Rye’s
business.If we were Greenland and wanting
water mains, we’d have a different stake.This an issue for Portsmouth and North Hampton
to deal with, he said.

Selectman Jenness said
that we did not send material to Coakley, but that we were getting it
back.

Selectman Musselman
agreed, referring to surface water in very low concentrations.

Selectman Jenness said
that we are getting leaching and could in the future.That is a problem to me, she said.

Selectman Musselman
referred to newspaper reporting where a City Attorney had made a statement
relative to private entities, and said that the Town might be encouraging a
difficult legal situation which we know nothing about and which the City of
Portsmouth had been dealing with.

Selectman Winslow said
that, from reading the background information, it seems obvious that somebody
has to get to the bottom of it.My
concern is whether the Town of Rye should get involved and what the
consequences would be.

(26:02 elapsed)

Selectman Musselman
said that he is a member of “that group.”He referred to the lack of “standing” to interject in our neighbors’
business.He asked whether there was a
second.Editor’s note:“Standing” is a
legal concept providing that someone arguing in court must have a stake in the
outcome.It has no meaning or
applicability in the legislative context.

There was a pause.

Selectman Jenness said
that she would withdraw the motion if there is not support.She referred to the possibility of Coakley
leaching additional material.

Selectman Winslow said
that he would not be comfortable supporting the motion unless it was first
found out what the remediation was to have been back in 1994.

Selectman Jenness said
that it was only a request for support of the bill, not involvement as
such.

As Selectman Jenness’
voice was trailing off, Selectman Musselman interrupted and referred to the
minutes.

Minutes (32:03 elapsed)

The minutes of the
February 12 meeting and the non-public session of the same day were unanimously
approved without changes.

Editor’s note:Click here for public comment earlier in the meeting on the Dow
Ln. issue.

Mr. Walker
addressed.He said that traffic counters
had been installed and in-person monitoring of turning movements had been
conducted.Anecdotal evidence of
speeding had been confirmed.Average
speeds were in the mid to high 30s, but closer to 30 m.p.h.
at Washington Rd.

There would be
sufficient capacity if Dow Ln. was closed and the traffic diverted to
Washington Rd. and Route 1.The light there
is not optimized.There would be a cost
to make it so.He implied that that
would eventually need to be done.A new
light would cost about $200,000.Closing
Dow Ln. would not be a high cost as it could be done with Jersey barriers.

Various options for
remediating the situation were discussed.There was discussion about the upcoming paving of Route 1.Several residents of the area also provided
input.

There was discussion
about accidents.While there were a
number of accidents, Mr. Walker said that the number of serious injuries or
fatalities in the past 10 years might prevent the intersection from qualifying
for special treatment.

Marty Chapman,
Executive Director of the Housing Partnership said that they were close to
providing a proposal.The target for
that is early April.There was
discussion about various funding options.While many of the residents are currently senior citizens, the Parsonage
Apartments are not technically senior housing currently.There was discussion about an increase in the
rent.Current rents are about $680
monthly.An increase would be proposed
to about $938 following renovation.That
led to discussion about whether some of the current residents would need to be
relocated elsewhere due to their inability to qualify at the higher rent.Mr. Chapman said that, after renovation, the
apartments would be serving a different demographic.Mr. Chapman said that builders do not like to
rehabilitate while the building is occupied, so temporary housing for the
residents would be needed in any case.He referred to providing help for those needing to relocate.

Selectman Jenness asked
about the availability of other housing in the area at the current price.

Mr. Chapman said that
the residents could not be displaced until the end of the contract, or the
difference in rent would have to be paid for 3 ˝ years.The better scenario would be to identify
other housing.If the Town is not going
to be the landlord they would have to move anyway, he said.

Selectman Musselman
pointed out that the lease would be up in January 2019.He asked why the Town did not yet have a
proposal.

Mr. Chapman referred to
his vendors having to proceed without compensation.He said that the Housing Partnership would be
willing to do an extension rather than walk away at the end of the lease.

Mr. Chapman said that
anything substantially below market would have demand.He has no doubt that the units can be rented
once they are nicer.However, the bank
would probably ask for a market study.

Selectman Musselman
expressed suspicion that Town Meeting voters would not want to approve a 99
year lease.

Selectman Winslow asked
whether the project would be viable with a 30 year lease.

Mr. Chapman said that
it would be most viable with a 99 year deed restriction.The idea is to create and keep affordable
units, he said.

Selectman Winslow said
that he would like to reconvene the Parsonage Committee when Mr. Chapman comes
back in.

Mr. Chapman said that
their response would be either that they would not do the project, or that they
were willing to do the project on specified terms.

Use of firefighting foam in Rye (46:36 elapsed)

Fire Chief Mark Cotreau
reported on the issue.He said that
there is more use of Class A foam.Class
B foam has PFOA concerns. Rye firefighters have used very little Class B foam.He said that he had spoken with his three
predecessors and interviewed department members.He said that only Class A foam had been used
on the brush fire at 111 Garland that also involved construction
equipment.Former Chief Sullivan
reported training having been done behind the station using fewer than 10
gallons of Class B foam, he said.

Selectman Musselman
asked whether Class B foam had been used near the Grove Rd. Landfill.Chief Cotreau said that it may have been, but
he is not sure.Editor’s note:The Grove Rd.
Landfill is just a few hundred feet from the Garland Well, which has
experienced somewhat elevated PFC levels.PFOAs are a type of PFC.

Chief Cotreau provided the inventories and
replacement costs for the foams that Rye has on hand:

GallonsReplacement cost

Class A60$5,800

Class B35$10,000

He said that the foam has a 20 year shelf life.He said that some trucks carry Class A foam
and others Class B.In some cases, the
foam is sucked out of a container using the venturi effect.Some of the foam is on trucks and some is at
the station.Thirty-five gallons would
not do a lot.If there was a plane crash
they would call Pease.

Selectman Jenness
referred to a plane from Pease having crashed in Rye just after the base had
opened.There were quite a few feet of
foam, she said.

In response to a
suggestion from Selectman Winslow, Chief Cotreau agreed to keep a formal record
of the usage of foam and the location where it was used.

Chief Cotreau said that
since 2015 all of the foam acquired has been environmentally friendly and
PFC-free.Everything we have now is
below 1 part per billion of PFCs, he said.

Selectman Musselman
pointed out that that is still 1000 parts per trillion.Editor’s
note:The drinking water standard in New
Hampshire is below 70 parts per trillion.

Chief Cotreau said that they must be really
careful around waterways and marshes.

In response to a question from Selectman
Musselman, Chief Cotreau said that Class B foam would be used in the case of a
transportation accident, particularly when there is a volume of running fuel
and a person in the vehicle.It would
not be used on a structure fire, he said.

Selectman Jenness asked
whether there was a danger if foam was sprayed on a person.

Chief Cotreau said that
if there is a victim in a car that would be the least of their worries.He said that he had been involved in the
usage of Class B foam only 2-3 times in his career.

(125:46 elapsed)

On a different subject
involving PFCs, Selectman Musselman said that he had recently been involved in
an issue in Arundel, ME involving a former dairy farm.The PFAS concentration there was very high
due to the application of sludge.He
asked whether there had been any sludge sites in Rye.

Selectman Jenness
referred to a farmer who was also a sewage collector who had applied sludge on
his own land.

Selectman Musselman
said that he knew where it was.There
was an old pit there, he said.

Selectman Jenness said
that she did not know about the pit, but it was near a spring.

Selectman Musselman
said that it was downhill from the spring.

South Rd. Conservation Acquisition (131:35
elapsed)

Selectman Jenness
started to get up to recuse herself.Selectman Musselman moved to table the issue to the March 12, 2018
meeting.Selectman Winslow
seconded.Both were in favor.

Permission for Keriann Roman to hold sign on March 9

Town Administrator
Magnant said that Keriann Roman had asked for permission to hold signs on both
March 9 and 10.Since March 9 was a
Friday, and since the permission granted in response to Mr. Crawford’srequest at the prior meeting applied
only to Saturdays, he asked whether this request was aceeptable.It was.

Blue Ocean Society cleanup

Selectman Winslow
referred to 71 beach cleanups having been done, collecting 4961 pounds.It was agreed that a letter of thanks would
be sent to them.